View Full Version : Apropros the recent mood of the board
This came across my Facebook today, and seemed appropriate given the level of vitriol every debate ends up looking like:
The Republicans think everyone who doesn't agree with them is a Social bastard, and the Democrats think everyone who doesn't agree with them is a Fascist bastard, and that's just what The Machine wants! It cannot succeed unless it turns neighbor against neighbor! Shake hands with your partisan neighbor, and agree that this machine is your common enemy.
H.
sneakerd
08-04-2011, 20:42
Then who shall we turn and attack!!! Aaaaarghh!!!! [AR15]
Then who shall we turn and attack!!! Aaaaarghh!!!! [AR15]
The bastards behind the machine. The wealthy and corporations who own both parties and rig the laws to benefit them and screw you.
I agree with the first posting.
sneakerd
08-04-2011, 20:50
I don't know- I'm actually kind of bored with arguing this today. I've used too much of my brain today and that's not a thing a man should do too often. I'm feeling fatigued.
flan7211
08-04-2011, 22:25
I would like to say I've liked everyone of you I've met. You all seem like good guys and we all have similar interests. As to the politics, take it this way. Repub/Conservative types like myself should be encouraged some lefties are on here. It shows that Right, center-right, center, and left folks around here care about are 2nd A rights. No matter how heated it gets were still here for that reason.
Hmmmmm, looks like I am a socialist bastard. [Coffee]
Doesn't matter because the libtards want our guns to tax the shit out of us and give our money away. Once they quit doing that then I will think about shaking their hand.
mcantar18c
08-05-2011, 01:33
I agree with the first posting.
I disagree with you and the first posting.
"The Machine" is not trying to pit neighbor against neighbor and tear us apart from the inside (that's a muzzie tactic, and a whole nother conversation).
My personal beliefs are conservative-libertarian. I think our defense budget should go untouched by budget cuts, "shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says, taxes should not be based on how well-off you are as a result of your hard work, and that the Constitution is not a living document and we need to do a 180 and get back on track with it. Ethically, I firmly believe that abortions should only be allowed in certain situations that should be handled on a case-by-case basis and not used as birth control, that anybody on drugs (including marijuana) is a worthless f*ck, and that gays are disgusting and severely screwed up however I don't think the gov't has no business telling you who or what you can f*ck as long as its consensual.
There are people (I believe you are one of them, Nynco) that disagree with me on many of these issues and others, both legally and ethically. Disagreeing is all well and fine, but the problem lies in the part where people from both sides want to run the same country.
The Man, The Machine, The Man behind the Curtain, whatever you want to call it/them.... is not trying to tear us apart. People that think this need to remove their heads from their asses and realize that We the People ARE The Man, and that disagreements in gov't are based upon different personal beliefs of the people.
bobbyfairbanks
08-05-2011, 01:45
I disagree with you and the first posting.
"The Machine" is not trying to pit neighbor against neighbor and tear us apart from the inside (that's a muzzie tactic, and a whole nother conversation).
My personal beliefs are conservative-libertarian. I think our defense budget should go untouched by budget cuts, "shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says, taxes should not be based on how well-off you are as a result of your hard work, and that the Constitution is not a living document and we need to do a 180 and get back on track with it. Ethically, I firmly believe that abortions should only be allowed in certain situations that should be handled on a case-by-case basis and not used as birth control, that anybody on drugs (including marijuana) is a worthless f*ck, and that gays are disgusting and severely screwed up however I don't think the gov't has no business telling you who or what you can f*ck as long as its consensual.
There are people (I believe you are one of them, Nynco) that disagree with me on many of these issues and others, both legally and ethically. Disagreeing is all well and fine, but the problem lies in the part where people from both sides want to run the same country.
The Man, The Machine, The Man behind the Curtain, whatever you want to call it/them.... is not trying to tear us apart. People that think this need to remove their heads from their asses and realize that We the People ARE The Man, and that disagreements in gov't are based upon different personal beliefs of the people.
You may want to rethink that entire libertarian leaning part. For some one who is claiming to be a libertarian you sure are taking a conservative stand on a lot of issues there. The entire premise of being a libertarian is that the government doesn't infringe on your life at all. So that would mean you are ok with gays, drug use (I bet you smoke and drink) and abortions.
I think you need to take a step back and look at yourself. Say what you mean and mean what you say.
mcantar18c
08-05-2011, 02:09
I think you need to take a step back and look at yourself.
I think you need to read more carefully and think before you talk (or type, in this case).
1. I said conservative-libertarian. As in, conservative with some libertarian tendencies.
2. I started out the part with gays, drugs, etc. with "Ethically,..." Ethics and morals are different than laws and government. I also ended it with the bit about not thinking it's the govt's place to tell gays what they can and can't do. As far as drugs go, I don't care what people do to themselves... you choose to do something to yourself, by all means go for it. My problem (where I believe the law should come into play) is where people's actions start to interfere with the lives of others. And don't pull the "drugs don't make you do crazy things" BS. I can't count how many news reports I've seen in the past few months alone about someone high on ___ going bat-shit crazy on some random person. One very recently where someone high on "bath salts" (synthetic coke) went berserk on a woman in a grocery store, violently shaking the shopping cart with her infant child in it. Another one where some homeless f*ckup on ___ (I don't recall what it was, but I'm pretty sure it was bath salts in this one as well) grabbed a baby out of his stroller while his mom was walking him and slammed it into a light pole and attempted to eat its arm (seriously, no joke). And I'm pretty sure you know what abortion is/does, no need to go into that.
Bottom line, if you aren't harming anyone else/infringing on someone else's God-given rights, I don't give a flying f*ck what you do and the gov't has no place trying to tell you you can't.
bobbyfairbanks
08-05-2011, 03:58
Big difference bud in being a Libertarian and Conservative. Go read up what being a Libertarian is. Expand your mind.
I finished that last post with Say what you mean and Mean what you say.
You sound a lot like the people sitting on the hill.
mcantar18c
08-05-2011, 04:34
Big difference bud in being a Libertarian and Conservative. Go read up what being a Libertarian is. Expand your mind.
I finished that last post with Say what you mean and Mean what you say.
You sound a lot like the people sitting on the hill.
As far as etchics/morals go, they're pretty similar. Where they differ is on how much gov't should be involved in enforcing those. This is why I brought up the gay thing... my personal opinion is that its wrong, disgusting, etc., however I don't believe the gov't has any place in the matter. This is more of a libertarian line of thinking. Conservatives are more of the idea that because it is wrong, disgusting, etc. it should therefore be outlawed. I fall somewhere between those two sides on most things, in that I don't care what someone does behind closed doors until their actions to infringe on others. As drugs go, I don't think they should be legal as they lead people to harm others (as proven in my last post... I can find links if you want). This is a conservative stance on the "war on drugs," libertarians only look at the fact that someone destroys nothing but their own body in the act of introducing a drug to their system and so there's no reason they should be illegal... they don't look at the effects drugs have on behavior, which effects the lives of others.
As for sounding like people on the hill... go pour the sand out of your ears.
CMP_5.56
08-05-2011, 05:49
Who is to say a conservative can't be a libertarian? I'm pretty damn conservative, but my views on politics and government are well in line with the libertarian party. Believing there should be less government in general, and that government should not infringe on your personal life what so ever, does not mean you have to be left leaning. I dont give a damn what anyone does as long as they don't try to take my rights or the rights of others away. But im much more conservative ethically, morally, and economically than any liberal. The libertarian party is all about not having those lines exist, am I right?
GunsRBadMMMMKay
08-05-2011, 10:20
Liberative Conservatarian in lieu of taking any sides
So no one believes that there may or may not be plans in place to push racial, political, and religious differences through mainstream media, keeping those things at the top of everyone's minds? Like if everyone stopped arguing about these things long enough to see how much we're (as the working or "common" class) getting screwed TPTB wouldn't have some serious problems on their hands? Yes, it's an idealic view and not very plausible....with everyone getting along and all - but is entirely possible.
As much as I would hate to admit it often times, I can many times associate with Libertarian more than Conservative. I believe in smaller government and believe that morality should not be legislated. Smoke what (or who) you want. However, I have my limits and there is a lot of gray area that is not addressed by either party. I won't get into a political debate, but I believe the gist of the OP is "can't we all just get along".
I agree with Hoosier to some extent, and that is that we have failed ourselves by not finding the common ground and instead just sticking to our guns and not even letting someone else discuss the commonality. I'm equally as guilty of this and become more so as time (and my age) progresses. I'm not sure "the Man" is bringing us down, I thing we have brought ourselves down. We have climbed our little mountains and said "this is MINE, you are not allowed".
By the way, we are not alone, the world all falls into this pit. No matter where you look, the same problem exists - the difference being that we in America are not punished for doing so.
This doesn't mean I'm going to run up to a liberal and give them a big wet sloppy kiss - frankly I would rather clobber one - so I'm part of the problem.
Zundfolge
08-05-2011, 11:14
This doesn't mean I'm going to run up to a liberal and give them a big wet sloppy kiss - frankly I would rather clobber one - so I'm part of the problem.
Thing is that's perfectly normal.
As for the recent mood of the board:
Look, whether some people like it or not, a gun forum is going to be populated primarily with Conservatives and Libertarians ... when a liberal comes here and turns every thread they post in into a liberal vs conservative/libertarian debate there does come a point where one has to wonder if they are in fact a troll.
Let me use a parallel example.
My aunt is a vegetarian. She's also an Evangelical Christian and a Tea Party Conservative.
If she goes to a vegetarian forum and starts debating politics, she's really trolling to a certain degree because regardless of the fact that there are vegetarian conservatives, MOST vegetarians are liberals. She knows this, and as such keeps her posts to things like recipes and tactics for keeping her hair from falling out and avoids debates on unions, homosexuality and gun control.
I'm not saying that liberals can't be pro gun and enjoy hunting and the shooting sports. There is no political requirement for gun ownership ... however if you are a liberal that shoots and you come here expecting to convert everyone here to liberalism you're wasting your time and at some point just peeing on the carpet.
Hell, I'm not even saying that the liberals should "know their place and keep their mouths shut", but for chrissake turning EVERY thread into a bare knuckle brawl just gets old and at some point you're no longer contributing to the community here, you're just here to piss people off.
If that's what you wanna do, fine ... just don't act all surprised and indignant when people start putting you on their ignore list.*
Honestly I doubt that most folk here would be as in your face about their politics if we were all sitting around the table in person sipping cervezas.
*Note that this is not directed at the OP; Hoosier ... who could probably be classified as one of these "gun toting liberals" but 1) he's usually able to make a decent argument (even though he's wrong :p ) and 2) he contributes to the discussions NOT about politics as much (if not more) than the political ones.
As far as etchics/morals go, they're pretty similar. Where they differ is on how much gov't should be involved in enforcing those. This is why I brought up the gay thing... my personal opinion is that its wrong, disgusting, etc., however I don't believe the gov't has any place in the matter. This is more of a libertarian line of thinking. Conservatives are more of the idea that because it is wrong, disgusting, etc. it should therefore be outlawed. I fall somewhere between those two sides on most things, in that I don't care what someone does behind closed doors until their actions to infringe on others. As drugs go, I don't think they should be legal as they lead people to harm others (as proven in my last post... I can find links if you want). This is a conservative stance on the "war on drugs," libertarians only look at the fact that someone destroys nothing but their own body in the act of introducing a drug to their system and so there's no reason they should be illegal... they don't look at the effects drugs have on behavior, which effects the lives of others.
As for sounding like people on the hill... go pour the sand out of your ears.
God that's good! I agree, and one of the things many do not get, and here is where I draw some lines- if drugs only harm those that do them, then tell me why driving while high on pot has the potential to be as dangerous to everyone on the road as alcohol? I've seen case studies, tests, and non-partisan research that proves marijuana (the "harmless miracle drug") slows reaction time and motor response. So on the same lines as mcantar, I'm fine with whatever choices one makes, but the second it adversely effects anyone else (like any of the examples depicted above) it should be illegal.
I would never deny the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness to anyone because of their sexual orientation, but please, stop f*cking bothering me about it. I get it, you're proud of who you are and who you love, no need to rub my face in it... It's not like I would run around saying "Yay! I love Mary Jane Rottencrotch! I make sweet sweet love to her every night! I'm a raging straight man! I'm allergic to any penis that is not my own! Blah blah blah"
Annoyed by them yet? Yes I am. Would I deny them their right to do what makes them happy as long as it doesn't infringe on others' rights? Hell no, this is America. Just because you don't agree with a view doesn't mean you can silence it. Best example: The KKK has just as much right to say what they feel as anyone else. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you have any right to deny them their rights.
Hoosier ... who could probably be classified as one of these "gun toting liberals"
The funny thing is, outside a forum like this which is so skewed towards one political view, I'm seen as the libertarian/more-conservative type.
Around here, though, I'm the commie bastard, apparently. Wanting to raise taxes to pay down the debt, unheard of!
[Beer]
H.
God that's good! I agree, and one of the things many do not get, and here is where I draw some lines- if drugs only harm those that do them, then tell me why driving while high on pot has the potential to be as dangerous to everyone on the road as alcohol? I've seen case studies, tests, and non-partisan research that proves marijuana (the "harmless miracle drug") slows reaction time and motor response. So on the same lines as mcantar, I'm fine with whatever choices one makes, but the second it adversely effects anyone else (like any of the examples depicted above) it should be illegal.
Not sure what point you're driving at here. All but the most ardent Libertarians believe that driving under the influence should be illegal, regardless of what the intoxicant is. There are some, more fringe, who believe driving while intoxicated should be legal. Their line of reasoning goes, there's no such thing as a traffic "accident", someone made a mistake and materially hurt others against their will -- thus breaking the law. Until you actually hit someone, it's legal. The viewpoint you expressed above would be (I think) defined as classic libertarianism, and at odds with current US drug policy.
sexual orientation ... stop f*cking bothering me about it ... no need to rub my face in it ... I'm a raging straight man! I'm allergic to any penis that is not my own! Blah blah blah
Wow, where do you run in to people like that? Are you attending a lot of gay pride parades? Watching non-stop LOGO on TV?
Hell no, this is America. Just because you don't agree with a view doesn't mean you can silence it.
I like the quote by Voltaire, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
H.
This came across my Facebook today, and seemed appropriate given the level of vitriol every debate ends up looking like:
"The Republicans think everyone who doesn't agree with them is a Social bastard, and the Democrats think everyone who doesn't agree with them is a Fascist bastard, and that's just what The Machine wants! It cannot succeed unless it turns neighbor against neighbor! Shake hands with your partisan neighbor, and agree that this machine is your common enemy."
H.That's an excellent quote. Who should I attribute it to?
Wow, where do you run in to people like that? Are you attending a lot of gay pride parades? Watching non-stop LOGO on TV?
I like the quote by Voltaire, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
H.
I don't attend any gay pride parades, but I've heard gay men say things like that. Such as "I'm a flaming homo!" or "Dude, I'm a gay man, I'm pretty sure if I make contact with a vagina I break out in hives." I just respond with "you're entitled to your opinion."
And the Voltaire quote is the cornerstone of my belief in the 1st A! Can't put it any better than that.
two shoes
08-05-2011, 13:01
You may want to rethink that entire libertarian leaning part. For some one who is claiming to be a libertarian you sure are taking a conservative stand on a lot of issues there. The entire premise of being a libertarian is that the government doesn't infringe on your life at all. So that would mean you are ok with gays, drug use (I bet you smoke and drink) and abortions.
I think you need to take a step back and look at yourself. Say what you mean and mean what you say.
I have been struggling with the apparent conflict within. Conservative vs. Libertarian...
I follow the Christian faith but feel the gov't should be the hell out of peoples lives. I am personally against abortion, but the gov't should't be involved to pay for or hinder this. The Doctors and women who do this will answer for their actions, in my mind. This has been vetted in our courts. Gays, even gay marriage... I do not like the idea or condone the practice, but damn, if they are willing to stand up for their pursuit of happiness, then so be it. I knew when I went into the military that I would be defending our Flag and defend someone's right to burn it. Hard pill to take, but I wouldn't want it any other way.
I used to be hardcore right wing and supported everything that went with it... but now think that religion should be a very personal thing and not dictated to the masses. I would hope that someone would see something in me to ask about my beliefs and then be able share with them.
I am for Liberty. I am for the rights outlined for us in the Constitution, for all men and women and men that act like women and visa versa. Although my religious beliefs guide my own actions I will not impose them upon others.
Am I the only one that is working through this?
I agree with you two shoes.... to give you perspective. I cheered when Newt took the house in 1994.
I have been struggling with the apparent conflict within. Conservative vs. Libertarian...
I follow the Christian faith but feel the gov't should be the hell out of peoples lives. I am personally against abortion, but the gov't should't be involved to pay for or hinder this. The Doctors and women who do this will answer for their actions, in my mind. This has been vetted in our courts. Gays, even gay marriage... I do not like the idea or condone the practice, but damn, if they are willing to stand up for their pursuit of happiness, then so be it. I knew when I went into the military that I would be defending our Flag and defend someone's right to burn it. Hard pill to take, but I wouldn't want it any other way.
I used to be hardcore right wing and supported everything that went with it... but now think that religion should be a very personal thing and not dictated to the masses. I would hope that someone would see something in me to ask about my beliefs and then be able share with them.
I am for Liberty. I am for the rights outlined for us in the Constitution, for all men and women and men that act like women and visa versa. Although my religious beliefs guide my own actions I will not impose them upon others.
Am I the only one that is working through this?
You're not alone, and I see things the exact same way. What you do with your partner (be they man, woman, a mix of the two, whatever) is your business, no one should have a right to come between a consensual adult relationship. What God you worship is your own business, no one has any right to infringe upon that (unless your God dictates you infringe upon others). I ask to all those who are so strongly opposed to gay marriage "does it effect you?" If two men get married what does it do to you? Do you suddenly become less important? Do you all of a sudden become less of a man? No, it's just another couple legitimizing their relationship before the state. So who cares! I personally don't agree with it, but it's not my place to say what they can and cannot do. I hate to quote a rap song but Jay-Z put it best: "What you eat doesn't make me shit."
You hit the nail on the head twoshoes, CHOICE is the key here. Your pastor starts doing gay marriages? Maybe you choose a new church, it's not really hard at all to surround yourself with the people and things that make you happy and comfortable and to push away the things you don't want around you. We are far too law happy in this country, stay outta my life and I'll be more than happy to stay out of yours.
And Hoosier, I enjoy your commentary it helps bring this mob down off it's high horse from time to time (self included) [Beer].
I'm not opposed to civil unions but I am opposed to calling it marriage. How does it affect me? To me it de-legitimizes the term marriage. It's splitting hairs perhaps, but a civil union being the same as marriage, OK, but since the term was first conceived it was a union between man and woman. I don't want to wake up tomorrow and find out that heterosexual also applies to gays as well, so why have to do that with marriage? I don't feel I need to qualify myself if I say "I'm married....to a woman". It's a new thing, gay "marriage", give it a new name.
If a civil union carried the same weight in law as a marriage does, then I would be for civil unions. In my opinion all people should have a civil union by the state as part of your marriage license and then go to a church if you want to get married. This is how Europe keeps religion and state separate on this issue.
I think one way to solve this is to make a law that says civil unions are viewed the same and subjected to all the same laws and protections as marriage.
I have tried to tell gays they were going about it the wrong way. But what can I do? I think part of the problem is how the media and our politicians frame the debate. So gays are forced into attacking it based on making marriage the same rather than civil unions the same as marriage.
hollohas
08-05-2011, 16:34
In my opinion all people should have a civil union by the state as part of your marriage license and then go to a church if you want to get married.
I agree with you here nynco. Marriage is traditionally a religious thing and the government should stay out of it.
The government should only be involved in civil unions. If you want the government benefits, get a civil union. If you want to be religious, get married at a church. Want benefits and religion, do both.
If a civil union carried the same weight in law as a marriage does, then I would be for civil unions. In my opinion all people should have a civil union by the state as part of your marriage license and then go to a church if you want to get married.
Every once in a while we find common ground. Now.....just hold on there fella......stop........no........FDR what?............Reagan did what.......
[Beer]
Every once in a while we find common ground. Now.....just hold on there fella......stop........no........FDR what?............Reagan did what.......
[Beer]
And those crazy socialist and Europe do it right.... lol I meant it more as a joke. [ROFL1] But that is where I got the idea of that from. A friend of mine got married in Germany so I heard about the differences.
I'll try to be less surly. I am listening to you ranger and learning too.[Beer]
I'll try to be less surly. I am listening to you ranger and learning too.[Beer]
Don't let it go to your head, you're still a dipshit :). [Flower]
jscwerve
08-05-2011, 17:36
Don't let it go to your head, you're still a dipshit :). [Flower]
Now I need a new keyboard, diet Mtn dew all over it.
[ROFL1]
Don't let it go to your head, you're still a dipshit :). [Flower]
Totally agree
I am opposed to calling it marriage. How does it affect me? To me it de-legitimizes the term marriage. It's splitting hairs perhaps, but a civil union being the same as marriage, OK, but since the term was first conceived it was a union between man and woman. I don't want to wake up tomorrow and find out that heterosexual also applies to gays as well, so why have to do that with marriage? I don't feel I need to qualify myself if I say "I'm married....to a woman". It's a new thing, gay "marriage", give it a new name.
How are you materially harmed? To say that "in my opinion my marriage is de-legitimized" implies that your feelings about this represent material harm. If that's the case, the same logic could be applied to the muslim lady who hit someone for taking her picture, she "felt" that her right had been harmed. I believe both of you are wrong.
And yes, I agree marriage is not something that Government should define in the first place. Call it a civil union, or just call it a contract -- where it should be anyway. That would be the extent of the governments involvement. From there you can go to your Church to get "married" and have the ceremony etc.
H.
Zundfolge
08-05-2011, 21:19
And yes, I agree marriage is not something that Government should define in the first place. Call it a civil union, or just call it a contract -- where it should be anyway. That would be the extent of the governments involvement. From there you can go to your Church to get "married" and have the ceremony etc.
Thats twice in one week that I find myself in complete agreement with Hoosier ... I think I need to go lie down or something.
I can't tell you how much it pissed me off that I had to go down to the court house and pony up some cash and beg the state for permission to marry my wife ... why the gays want that too is beyond me.
And yes, I agree marriage is not something that Government should define in the first place. Call it a civil union, or just call it a contract -- where it should be anyway. That would be the extent of the governments involvement. From there you can go to your Church to get "married" and have the ceremony etc.
H.
Hoosier, you'll see I had said the same thing a few more replies down. Marriage to me is a church thing and I really didn't articulate that very well on my first reply.
Hoosier, you'll see I had said the same thing a few more replies down. Marriage to me is a church thing and I really didn't articulate that very well on my first reply.
Yeah I saw someone else said it, I was agreeing that's the way it should be.
On FB a gay friend posted about this issue, and I said something along the lines of "Government should have no involvement in 'marriage', they can do nothing but take rights away" and got jumped on by several of his friends who thought I was taking a stance against his. My friend knew what was up and put my thoughts into more eloquent phrasing.
Need a little web app with circle-slider for every question... Then make an effective questionnaire where each question has several answers, and you can select a value anywhere between each of the answers.
H.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.